Well, I finally got invited to a VTES Rules Meeting, and took all the
questions asked so far to them for answers. The Q&A is as follows:
WEEKLY VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE RULINGS
Volume 1
Questions will be compiled for presentation at the next Rules Team Meeting
on a weekly basis. Answers will be posted as immediately after the next
meeting as possible (usually within 24 hours).
All rulings are to be considered official and binding.
This week's rulings have been reviewed and decided upon by Tom Wiley, Paul
Peterson, Jeff Harris, and Jon Wilkie.
THIS WEEK'S QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
QUESTION: Can a vampire pay an arbitrary X to prevent X+1 damage, even if
there isn't that much damage to prevent? The rules say that you can't
play more cards than you need, but you can play one card that prevents
more damage than you have. For instance, you could play superior Undead
Persistence to prevent two damage, even when you've only taken one. So,
if you have a famous vampire whose had his Beast Drawn out (superior,
doing one damage at the end of the round), can you spend all of his blood
to prevent (All+1) damage, even if he only gets punched for one?
ANSWER: No, you can only prevent damage that was dealt.
QUESTION: Anson has only one blood left. He does a bleed action with
Legal Manipulations for +2 bleed. Before a block is announced the guy
with Anson decides to play Aire of Elation to get rid of the card. What
happens now since Anson has to pay for the Aire of Elation immediately and
can no longer pay for the Legal Manip.
ANSWER: The action continues, but has no effect.
***** UAQ QUESTIONS *****
QUESTION: Under DCI tourney rules, does the "no repeat actions" apply if
an action is unsuccessfull?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: DCI tourney rules, do political action cards thrown in for
extra votes get replaced at the end of the acting Methuselah's turn, or at
the end of owning players turn?
ANSWER: At the end of of the acting Methuselah's turn.
QUESTION: Do the burned PAs count against a players hand size for
purposes of FragNod, Barrens, etc.?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: 6/20/96: "Cannot commit diablerie" is a function of card text
but "Non-Camarilla" is a funcion of clan. Why the distinction?
ANSWER: For simplicity of wording.
QUESTION: 6/26/96: Why does the acting minion's S:CE resolve before the
defender's S:CE, when the rulebook states that they resolve
simultaneously?
ANSWER: They resolve simultaneously.
QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to
aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
etc.)?
ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
by non-strike cards.
QUESTION: 7/08/96: Blood to Water can still be played at the beginning of
a round, when range is irrelevant. Why add useless errata saying that it
can only be played at close range?
ANSWER: Blood to Water must be played after Range is set.
QUESTION: 7/31/96: Who is the controller of Phobia and Temptation (the
"you" seems to be referring to the player who played the card, not the one
who, by definition of minion cards, is the controller of it once it is in
play)?
ANSWER: The person who played it is the controller.
QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath
not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming).
CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword,
Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)?
ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
QUESTION: 8/02/96: When can Press-step events be played? (before presses,
after presses, or at any time?)
ANSWER: After presses, or, if the round is ended prematurely by some
effect, at the point that the round ends.
QUESTION: Anathema: Is the "only kicks in if the vampire is reduced to 0
blood due to effects errata? Would that allow a vampire to burn his own
blood paying costs (of combat cards) to "save" himself from Anathema?
ANSWER: Yes. If the vampire is reduced to zero Blood due to combat
damage, blood theft, etc., then Anathema's effect goes off.
QUESTION: Tomb of Ramses was cited as being revised by the RT. What's
the scoop?
ANSWER: There has been no change on Tomb of Ramses.
QUESTION: If I steal a Tomb of Ramses III from someone (via Disputed
Territory), what happens?
1) The Tomb continues to function normally, giving the target
vampire (in someone else's uncontrolled region) a blood for
every transfer I make to one of my uncontrolled vampires.
2) The Tomb ceases to function.
3) I put the Tomb on one of my vampires when I steal it (since
Tomb text has innapropriately used the "place on vampire"
instruction instead of "name a vampire" or "select a target"
text that a *location* should have).
ANSWER: Number three is correct. Basically, treat it like you just
brought it out (although you do not have to pay its cost or resolve any
effects triggered by playing a card).
QUESTION: 10/07/96: Depravity: Is +1 hand damage gained only on diablerie
attempts?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: In the case of a vote that directly targets another player
(say a disputed territory attempting to steal one of his hunting
grounds) can the affected player attempt to block the vote, even he is not
the predator or prey of the Meth. attempting the action??
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: b) Can Pulled fangs affect a non-vampire minion using
aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since
non-vampire minions can't go to torpor...
ANSWER: You can play it on a non-vampire, but it does nothing...
QUESTION: How are timing issues resolved for Alexandria's special
ability, and the Louvre? I believe Hiedelberg has already been ruled on,
no? For example, can you tap someone in response to a declared action?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Can you tap someone in response to an attempt to block?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: In response to a reaction card they play?
ANSWER: Yes.
QUESTION: Again, if so, what happens to the card?
ANSWER: It's put in the Ash Heap.
QUESTION: Do you treat it like delaying tactics?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: How can you reduce a vampire's capacity to zero? Both of these
cards imply that you can reduce capacity to zero, but not below. Tell me,
how do you work with a zero capacity vampire? It seems that it would be
caught in the loop of hunting/no gain/hunting/no gain.
ANSWER: The vampire is reduced to a pathetic state, only able to block.
QUESTION: Why the distinction in the wording on Powerbase: Mexico City
and Powerbase: New York? If a (D) action cannot be directed against
oneself (by definition), why the extra wording in P:NY?
ANSWER: Whoops. Evidently someone forgot to take out the totally
extraneous wording on P:NY.
QUESTION: What if you don't have a retainer or ally in play? Can you
still bring out a War Ghoul?
ANSWER: Yeah, and it must immediately be sacrificed: "When War Ghoul
enters play, burn an ally or retainer you control."
QUESTION: What the blinkety-blank are you talking about with this
vampire? One *what*?
ANSWER: One political action or title.
QUESTION: I think this vampire is glaringly overpowered. For four pool,
you not only gain a vampire with POT CEL for, which I would pay 4 pool for
any day, but you also burn another Methuselah's vampire. The only drawback
is that someone might burn *your* Jimmy Dunn. Haven't we already
established with Camille/Raven that this kind of dynamic (more likely to
self-contest) is a silly one?
Jimmy Dunn, 4 Capacity, POT CEL for Pander
Jimmy Dunn cannot be contested. If a second Jimmy comes into play, burn
the first Jimmy in play instead of contesting him.
ANSWER: Well, that's one opinion. My feeling is that if everyone has it
in their deck, then it will be contested (or burned, in the case of Jimmy)
very often. If you disagree, don't play with Jimmy.
QUESTION: A general beef: why the escalation that allows vampires to play
additional strikes that do not count against your additional strike count
for the round (such as Quickness). This is not fair, since it cannot be
countered by players who do not buy the Sabbat. If you have to buy an
expansion to be competitive, that's escalation, and it's bad. Now, any
good CEL deck will have cards like Quickness, and they can beat older CEL
decks without even trying.
ANSWER: Vampires who use Quickness burn through blood much faster, making
them more vulnerable. "Live fast, die young".
QUESTION: Two questions that came to mind after reading the rules were,
firstly, what's the story with the section about running out of cards and
withdrawing from the game? Is that supposed to be a Sabbat-only rules
change, something to use when playing with any cards from Sabbat, or just
a suggestion of another way to play the endgame?
ANSWER: It's a total rules change, as the old way of withdrawing blew
chunks (this is not a direct rules team quote).
QUESTION: Also, when a Writ of Acceptance is played on a Sabbat vampire,
I understand that the vampire becomes Camarilla. However, does that
vampire also lose Sabbat benefits, or not? I wouldn't think that a single
vampire could be both in the Camarilla and in the Sabbat, but if this is
true then, if nothing else, it would mean (I assume) that if you equipped
a Sabbat Bishop with a Writ of
Acceptance, the title would go away. Not that you'd want to do this but I
just wanted to confirm.
ANSWER: Nope, he keeps the title if he had it before becoming Camarilla.
I know, it's weird gameworld-wise, but that's the rules.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wilkie Wot...@aol.com
a.k.a."Scalpel" Customer Service, Wizards of the Coast
"This isn't going to have a happy ending"
-Detective Somerset, Se7en
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wilkie (Wot...@aol.com) wrote:
: Well, I finally got invited to a VTES Rules Meeting, and took all the: questions asked so far to them for answers. The Q&A is as follows:
Thanks for the response, Jon, but I have a question for you directly,
and I'd appreciate it if you could quickly respond "from the hip" in a
completely unofficial capacity....
Do you realize that you've given us a set of answers which contain two
questions with directly contradictory responses?
: QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to: aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
: etc.)?
:
: ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
: by non-strike cards.
And then...
: QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using: the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
: occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
:
: ANSWER: No.
I'm curious as to how I can "play Rotschreck in response to aggravated
damage dealt by non-strike cards [like Pulled Fangs]" when I cannot play
the card on a vampire using the card pulled fangs?
---------
The following are additional comments that I have, that I'm curious as
to how other people feel.
: WEEKLY VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE RULINGS
: Volume 1
Huzzah!
: Questions will be compiled for presentation at the next Rules Team Meeting: on a weekly basis. Answers will be posted as immediately after the next
: meeting as possible (usually within 24 hours).
Will there be any other contact from our net. rep. beyond these posts?
: All rulings are to be considered official and binding.
Even the contradictory ones?
: QUESTION: Can a vampire pay an arbitrary X to prevent X+1 damage, even if: there isn't that much damage to prevent?:
: ANSWER: No, you can only prevent damage that was dealt.
Can this ruling be extended to include burning masters to gain intercept
(forget which card this is)?
: QUESTION: 6/26/96: Why does the acting minion's S:CE resolve before the: defender's S:CE, when the rulebook states that they resolve
: simultaneously?
:
: ANSWER: They resolve simultaneously.
Kind of a short answer for an overrule. Any comments, rulemongers?
: QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to: aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
: etc.)?
:
: ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
: by non-strike cards.
Despite the ruling which states that Roetschreck can only be played during
the strike phase... guess that means it's yet ANOTHER Rotschreck rules
overturn.
: QUESTION: 7/08/96: Blood to Water can still be played at the beginning of: a round, when range is irrelevant. Why add useless errata saying that it
: can only be played at close range?
:
: ANSWER: Blood to Water must be played after Range is set.
So how should blood to water now read?
: QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using: the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
: occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
:
: ANSWER: No.
Ah, a contradiction... (see above)
: QUESTION: How can you reduce a vampire's capacity to zero? Both of these: cards imply that you can reduce capacity to zero, but not below. Tell me,
: how do you work with a zero capacity vampire? It seems that it would be
: caught in the loop of hunting/no gain/hunting/no gain.
:
: ANSWER: The vampire is reduced to a pathetic state, only able to block.
The question I have is this: what happens during the minion phase? Are they
forced to attempt to hunt and then find they cannot? Are they tapped by
this transaction? I'm particularly interested in knowing about the tapped
stuff 'cuz it (of course) affects their ability to block.
: QUESTION: A general beef: why the escalation that allows vampires to play: additional strikes that do not count against your additional strike count
: for the round (such as Quickness).:
: ANSWER: Vampires who use Quickness burn through blood much faster, making: them more vulnerable. "Live fast, die young".
There are multiple ways to regain blood. If I'm dead, I can't get my
blood back -- the guy who was "living fast" can. I still am waiting for
the reasoning which made the design team go from a stance where stacking of
additional strikes is prohibited, to one where it is easy to do?
: QUESTION: Also, when a Writ of Acceptance is played on a Sabbat vampire,: I understand that the vampire becomes Camarilla. However, does that
: vampire also lose Sabbat benefits, or not? I wouldn't think that a single
: vampire could be both in the Camarilla and in the Sabbat, but if this is
: true then, if nothing else, it would mean (I assume) that if you equipped
: a Sabbat Bishop with a Writ of
: Acceptance, the title would go away. Not that you'd want to do this but I
: just wanted to confirm.
:
: ANSWER: Nope, he keeps the title if he had it before becoming Camarilla.
: I know, it's weird gameworld-wise, but that's the rules.
This leaves me unfulfilled. Sorry.
-spongy
> QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to
> aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
> etc.)?
>
> ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
> by non-strike cards.
>> QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
> the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
> occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
>
> ANSWER: No.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these "officially binding" rules
contradict each other? I would hope that the rules team is competent enough to
notice probelms like this before releasing "official rulings"
Karl Innes wrote:
Exerp from "official" weekly rulings document.....
>
> > QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to
> > aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
> > etc.)?
> >
> > ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
> > by non-strike cards.
> >> > QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
> > the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
> > occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
> >
> > ANSWER: No.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these "officially binding" rules
> contradict each other? I would hope that the rules team is competent enough to
> notice probelms like this before releasing "official rulings"
Just curious, Karl
Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>ANSWER: It's a total rules change, as the old way of withdrawing blew
>chunks (this is not a direct rules team quote).
Under the new method, who gets the Ante of a Methuselah who is forced to
withdraw? (Ante goes to whoever gets the VP, but since no one gets the
VP in this case...)
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Experience is something you
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | get just after you need it.
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Jon Wilkie wrote:
> WEEKLY VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE RULINGS
> Volume 1
>> THIS WEEK'S QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
>
>> QUESTION: DCI tourney rules, do political action cards thrown in for
> extra votes get replaced at the end of the acting Methuselah's turn, or at
> the end of owning players turn?
>
> ANSWER: At the end of of the acting Methuselah's turn.
>
The new sabbat rules refer not to the end of the turn but to the
end of the minion phase (IIRC). Are DCI rules going to change to reflect
this or is this so redundant that you won't even bother? :)
Anyway, this refers to PA's. What about modifiers like DGaze and
BOration? Do they get replaced at the end of the turn/phase?
> QUESTION: 6/20/96: "Cannot commit diablerie" is a function of card text
> but "Non-Camarilla" is a funcion of clan. Why the distinction?
>
> ANSWER: For simplicity of wording.
>
So you can have a born Assamite able to commit diablerie.
Is Sabbat a funcion of clan or card?
> QUESTION: 7/08/96: Blood to Water can still be played at the beginning of
> a round, when range is irrelevant. Why add useless errata saying that it
> can only be played at close range?
>
> ANSWER: Blood to Water must be played after Range is set.
>
Finally. Just because of this it might have been worth to wait
all this long.
> QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath
> not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming).
> CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword,
> Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)?
>
> ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
> Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
>
And Kali's Fang? It's a Melee weapon that doesn't seem to be
affected by natural +x hand damage but is subject to undead strengtheses
et al. Why didn't you do the +1 hand damage as usual? Or are you making a
Kali's strike's damage not increasable by lucky blow's/potence cards.
> QUESTION: Anathema: Is the "only kicks in if the vampire is reduced to 0
> blood due to effects errata? Would that allow a vampire to burn his own
> blood paying costs (of combat cards) to "save" himself from Anathema?
>
> ANSWER: Yes. If the vampire is reduced to zero Blood due to combat
> damage, blood theft, etc., then Anathema's effect goes off.
>
Doesn't this change Anathema radically? I mean, the whole card
text is based on the fact that a minon that somehow is in combat with the
Anathema is making a favor to the society and if he can debilitate the
Anathema enough, it is burned. Now, what the hell is the Anathema without
combat damage?
> QUESTION: Tomb of Ramses was cited as being revised by the RT. What's
> the scoop?
>
> ANSWER: There has been no change on Tomb of Ramses.
>
There should be. I've seen really bad uses of ToR, and really
innocuous ones. You might give exaples of uses in the latter form, but
most people are worried with uses in the former. Anyway, it's not a
broken card...
> 3) I put the Tomb on one of my vampires when I steal it (since
> Tomb text has innapropriately used the "place on vampire"
> instruction instead of "name a vampire" or "select a target"
> text that a *location* should have).
>
> ANSWER: Number three is correct. Basically, treat it like you just
> brought it out (although you do not have to pay its cost or resolve any
> effects triggered by playing a card).
>
And you get to pick wich vampire lives in the tomb, right?
One of the fixes would be getting all the blood that has been
gained via tomb *on* the tomb (thus when it was stolen the blood came
with it) or, more amusing still, the uncontrolled vampire came attached
to the tomb. :)
The problem is no the use of ToRIII in small vamps (8 cap <) it's
with the big ones, who take more turns to control. If having the tomb for
long was too dangerous it wouldn't be as much of a problem ...
[cut/paste]
> QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to
> aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
> etc.)?
>
> ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
> by non-strike cards.
>
> QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
> the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
> occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
>
> ANSWER: No.
>
I haven't much interest in the Rotschreck dilemma (since it's a
Jyhad card), but isn't this a little contradictory?
> QUESTION: b) Can Pulled fangs affect a non-vampire minion using
> aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since
> non-vampire minions can't go to torpor...
>
> ANSWER: You can play it on a non-vampire, but it does nothing...
>
Nothing? Not even 1 damage?
> QUESTION: What the blinkety-blank are you talking about with this
> vampire? One *what*?
>
> ANSWER: One political action or title.
>
What vampire?
> QUESTION: I think this vampire is glaringly overpowered.
[cut]
>
> Jimmy Dunn, 4 Capacity, POT CEL for Pander
> Jimmy Dunn cannot be contested. If a second Jimmy comes into play, burn
> the first Jimmy in play instead of contesting him.
>
> ANSWER: Well, that's one opinion. My feeling is that if everyone has it
> in their deck, then it will be contested (or burned, in the case of Jimmy)
> very often. If you disagree, don't play with Jimmy.
>
And if your pals didn't buy Sabbat, hey! Better yet! :/
> QUESTION: A general beef: why the escalation that allows vampires to play
> additional strikes that do not count against your additional strike count> for the round (such as Quickness). This is not fair, since it cannot be
> countered by players who do not buy the Sabbat. If you have to buy an
> expansion to be competitive, that's escalation, and it's bad. Now, any
> good CEL deck will have cards like Quickness, and they can beat older CEL
> decks without even trying.
>> ANSWER: Vampires who use Quickness burn through blood much faster, making
> them more vulnerable. "Live fast, die young".
>
Have you ever heard of Taste of vitae?
> QUESTION: Two questions that came to mind after reading the rules were,
> firstly, what's the story with the section about running out of cards and
> withdrawing from the game? Is that supposed to be a Sabbat-only rules
> change, something to use when playing with any cards from Sabbat, or just
> a suggestion of another way to play the endgame?
>> ANSWER: It's a total rules change, as the old way of withdrawing blew
> chunks (this is not a direct rules team quote).
>
But it's true.
Anyway, there's a part on those rules that overrules the "golden
rule of card ownership". Is this completely overruled now?
> QUESTION: Also, when a Writ of Acceptance is played on a Sabbat vampire,
> I understand that the vampire becomes Camarilla. However, does that
> vampire also lose Sabbat benefits, or not? I wouldn't think that a single
> vampire could be both in the Camarilla and in the Sabbat, but if this is
> true then, if nothing else, it would mean (I assume) that if you equipped
> a Sabbat Bishop with a Writ of
> Acceptance, the title would go away. Not that you'd want to do this but I
> just wanted to confirm.
>
> ANSWER: Nope, he keeps the title if he had it before becoming Camarilla.
> I know, it's weird gameworld-wise, but that's the rules.
>
I thought you made the rules. You're sounding like you're getting
some silly unexplained orders and you're not contesting them. If you
don't agree with them, what's keeping you??
Glad to see you back.
David Pontes
8[
Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>QUESTION: DCI tourney rules, do political action cards thrown in for
>extra votes get replaced at the end of the acting Methuselah's turn, or at
>the end of owning players turn?>ANSWER: At the end of of the acting Methuselah's turn.
The Sabbat rulebook differs in this timing - the Sabbat says that the
burned PAs aren't replaced until the end of the current minion phase.
Does this override the DCI rules, or are the DCI rules to be read as
overriding the Sabbat rules (for purposes of official tournaments
only, or for general play as well)?
I'd guess that the Sabbat rules are meant to override this, since they
are the most recent set of rules, but since the DCI and WotC are
separate entities (at least, on paper), I just thought I'd try to get
this cleared up.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>Well, I finally got invited to a VTES Rules Meeting, and took all the
>questions asked so far to them for answers. The Q&A is as follows:
I thought you had been invited to the meeting on 10/30/96.
(According to your post <WotCCST-2910...@w11-63.wizards.com>)
>WEEKLY VAMPIRE: THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE RULINGS
>Volume 1>Questions will be compiled for presentation at the next Rules Team Meeting
>on a weekly basis. Answers will be posted as immediately after the next
>meeting as possible (usually within 24 hours).
Excellent.
>All rulings are to be considered official and binding.
... Insofar as they are consistent.
>This week's rulings have been reviewed and decided upon by Tom Wiley, Paul
>Peterson, Jeff Harris, and Jon Wilkie.
Tom Wylie changed the spelling of his name?
Is this "official", too? :-)
>THIS WEEK'S QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
Just a note: "Answers" imply rulings. If you want to change the way the
card is to be read, you should label your answer "ERRATA", so that we
don't mistakenly apply your rulings to other cards. (Mr. Wylie called
me on this point once.)
>QUESTION: Can a vampire pay an arbitrary X to prevent X+1 damage, even if
>there isn't that much damage to prevent? The rules say that you can't
>play more cards than you need, but you can play one card that prevents
>more damage than you have. For instance, you could play superior Undead
>Persistence to prevent two damage, even when you've only taken one. So,
>if you have a famous vampire whose had his Beast Drawn out (superior,
>doing one damage at the end of the round), can you spend all of his blood
>to prevent (All+1) damage, even if he only gets punched for one?>ANSWER: No, you can only prevent damage that was dealt.
So, now you /can't/ use Undead Persistence to prevent one damage?
Care to clarify that reversal?
(I included that example in the question so that you could present us
with a base ruling - we don't need a bunch of piecemeal, special-case
rulings on individual cards - we need to know what principles are at work)
You need to explain why the X in Hidden Strength is *not* being treated
as a cost - but rather as part of the effect. (This will become more
important as questions regarding Dragos.)
>QUESTION: Anson has only one blood left. He does a bleed action with
>Legal Manipulations for +2 bleed. Before a block is announced the guy
>with Anson decides to play Aire of Elation to get rid of the card. What
>happens now since Anson has to pay for the Aire of Elation immediately and
>can no longer pay for the Legal Manip.>ANSWER: The action continues, but has no effect.
Does it count as a "successful" action (for things like inferior Freak
Drive)?
>QUESTION: Do the burned PAs count against a players hand size for
>purposes of FragNod, Barrens, etc.?>ANSWER: Yes.
Do "do not replace until after combat" cards count against hand size?
>QUESTION: 6/26/96: Why does the acting minion's S:CE resolve before the
>defender's S:CE, when the rulebook states that they resolve
>simultaneously?>ANSWER: They resolve simultaneously.
Thank you for the reversal in favor of logic!
>QUESTION: 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to
>aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs,
>etc.)?>ANSWER: You can play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt
>by non-strike cards.>QUESTION: 7/08/96: Blood to Water can still be played at the beginning of
>a round, when range is irrelevant. Why add useless errata saying that it
>can only be played at close range?>ANSWER: Blood to Water must be played after Range is set.
Why? Is this errata, or just some function of trying to support an
o'er-hasty ruling? (Or, likely: both?)
>QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath
>not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming).
>CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword,
>Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)?>ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
>Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
Again: What text denotes a hand strike?
By the above "answer", I could assume that Blood Rage is a hand strike.
(That is, it doesn't involve a weapon).
>QUESTION: 8/02/96: When can Press-step events be played? (before presses,
>after presses, or at any time?)>ANSWER: After presses, or, if the round is ended prematurely by some
>effect, at the point that the round ends.
This reverses several restriction/rulings placed on the playability of
Pulled Fangs. Is that intentional?
>QUESTION: Anathema: Is the "only kicks in if the vampire is reduced to 0
>blood due to effects errata? Would that allow a vampire to burn his own
>blood paying costs (of combat cards) to "save" himself from Anathema?>ANSWER: Yes. If the vampire is reduced to zero Blood due to combat
>damage, blood theft, etc., then Anathema's effect goes off.
What a wacky little game we have now. Whee!
>QUESTION: Tomb of Ramses was cited as being revised by the RT. What's
>the scoop?>ANSWER: There has been no change on Tomb of Ramses.
It (the supposed "attention" Tomb was gettinmg from RT) was just
more PR, then?
>QUESTION: If I steal a Tomb of Ramses III from someone (via Disputed
>Territory), what happens?> 1) The Tomb continues to function normally, giving the target
> vampire (in someone else's uncontrolled region) a blood for
> every transfer I make to one of my uncontrolled vampires.> 2) The Tomb ceases to function.> 3) I put the Tomb on one of my vampires when I steal it (since
> Tomb text has innapropriately used the "place on vampire"
> instruction instead of "name a vampire" or "select a target"
> text that a *location* should have).>ANSWER: Number three is correct. Basically, treat it like you just
>brought it out (although you do not have to pay its cost or resolve any
>effects triggered by playing a card).
So, if I steal a Powerbase: Chicago, all of the blood on it drains off
to the blood bank? (Since I am to treat it as if I just brought it out.)
>QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
>the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
>occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)>ANSWER: No.
"Yes" by RTR 10/13/96 (above)
>QUESTION: b) Can Pulled fangs affect a non-vampire minion using
>aggravated damage??? If so what are the consequences of this since
>non-vampire minions can't go to torpor...>ANSWER: You can play it on a non-vampire, but it does nothing...
You can't play it at all, because you fail to meet the "usable when.."
citerion on the card. (That is, you can't inflict more damage than
the opposing vampire if there is no opposing vampire).
>QUESTION: How are timing issues resolved for Alexandria's special
>ability, and the Louvre? I believe Hiedelberg has already been ruled on,
>no? For example, can you tap someone in response to a declared action?>ANSWER: No.
>
>QUESTION: Can you tap someone in response to an attempt to block?>ANSWER: Yes.
But, as they are already a declared blocker, they can still attempt to block,
correct? (Need lots of explanation if this is not the case, since it
basically destroys all of my perceptions of the blocking process - the same
process that is outlined in my Complete Rules Outline, which has passed
inspection by Mr. Wylie).
>QUESTION: In response to a reaction card they play?>ANSWER: Yes.
But the reaction card will still have been played, correct?
(Since there is no "response" in VtES.)
>QUESTION: Again, if so, what happens to the card?>ANSWER: It's put in the Ash Heap.
And has it's normal effect, correct?
>QUESTION: What the blinkety-blank are you talking about with this
>vampire? One *what*?>ANSWER: One political action or title.
With *what* vampire? A question with no context - answering something
about a card with no context. Nice closure there :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hi Scott,
On 14 Nov 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote:
> Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>
> >QUESTION: 8/02/96: When can Press-step events be played? (before presses,
> >after presses, or at any time?)
>
> >ANSWER: After presses, or, if the round is ended prematurely by some
> >effect, at the point that the round ends.
>
> This reverses several restriction/rulings placed on the playability of
> Pulled Fangs. Is that intentional?
>
So then, I could riposte and then use pulled fangs?
> >QUESTION: a) Can the master card Rotschreck be played on a vampire using
> >the card pulled fangs?? If so how does this resolve? (since the effect
> >occurs after strike resolution and damage resolution.)
>
> >ANSWER: No.
>
> "Yes" by RTR 10/13/96 (above)
>
So then, I can make a Weenie Presence combat deck using
Bums rush, Catatonic Fear, and Pulled Fangs? No wonder big vampires are
getting cheaper....
Algustas
*****The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared
to me then.***** George W. W. Bramwell, Justice of the Court of the Exchequer
In article <56f8lp$6...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) wrote:
> I thought you had been invited to the meeting on 10/30/96.
> (According to your post <WotCCST-2910...@w11-63.wizards.com>)
I had, verbally. The internal invitation on our electronic Meeting
schedule hadn't been booked until last week.
> Tom Wylie changed the spelling of his name?
> Is this "official", too? :-)
We have put errata on Tom Wylie... :)
> So, now you /can't/ use Undead Persistence to prevent one damage?
> Care to clarify that reversal?
>
> (I included that example in the question so that you could present us
> with a base ruling - we don't need a bunch of piecemeal, special-case
> rulings on individual cards - we need to know what principles are at work)
>
> You need to explain why the X in Hidden Strength is *not* being treated
> as a cost - but rather as part of the effect. (This will become more
> important as questions regarding Dragos.)
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> Does it count as a "successful" action (for things like inferior Freak
> Drive)?
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> Do "do not replace until after combat" cards count against hand size?
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> Thank you for the reversal in favor of logic!
No problem. We do okay sometimes... :)
> Why? Is this errata, or just some function of trying to support an
> o'er-hasty ruling? (Or, likely: both?)
Most likely a little of both, but just to make sure...
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> >ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
> >Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
>
> Again: What text denotes a hand strike?
>
> By the above "answer", I could assume that Blood Rage is a hand strike.
> (That is, it doesn't involve a weapon).
You would be correct. As far as I know, there is no specific wording that
denotes a Hand Strike. If the strike is at short range, and does not
involve a weapon, it is to be considered a Hand Strike.
> This reverses several restriction/rulings placed on the playability of
> Pulled Fangs. Is that intentional?
It's the rules.
> It (the supposed "attention" Tomb was gettinmg from RT) was just
> more PR, then?
Or it could be one of the many WotC urban legends (like the "Carta Mundi
burned down" rumor).
> So, if I steal a Powerbase: Chicago, all of the blood on it drains off
> to the blood bank? (Since I am to treat it as if I just brought it out.)
I apologize for generalizing for clarity. Ignore my metaphor on "as if
just played".
> "Yes" by RTR 10/13/96 (above)
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> You can't play it at all, because you fail to meet the "usable when.."
> citerion on the card. (That is, you can't inflict more damage than
> the opposing vampire if there is no opposing vampire).
Touche'! You are correct. Noted for the next Rules Meeting (to reverse
the ruling in Volume 1).
> But, as they are already a declared blocker, they can still attempt to block,
> correct? (Need lots of explanation if this is not the case, since it
> basically destroys all of my perceptions of the blocking process - the same
> process that is outlined in my Complete Rules Outline, which has passed
> inspection by Mr. Wylie).
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> But the reaction card will still have been played, correct?
> (Since there is no "response" in VtES.)
<SNIP>
> And has it's normal effect, correct?
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
> >QUESTION: What the blinkety-blank are you talking about with this
> >vampire? One *what*?
> >ANSWER: One political action or title.
> With *what* vampire? A question with no context - answering something
> about a card with no context. Nice closure there :-)
I believe we were referring to the Caitiff that can't be given a title,
nor can she take actions that would give her one. On the card, it's
clear, but evidently the spoiler list didn't have the same text as the
card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Jon Wilkie (Wot...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <56ffas$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
: Scott Johnson) wrote:
: > Under the new method, who gets the Ante of a Methuselah who is forced to: > withdraw? (Ante goes to whoever gets the VP, but since no one gets the
: > VP in this case...):
: Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
Thank you, Jon.
-spongy
In article <328A99...@infomatch.com>, Karl Innes <in...@infomatch.com>
wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these "officially binding" rules
> contradict each other? I would hope that the rules team is competent
enough to
> notice probelms like this before releasing "official rulings"
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <56fqov$e...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) wrote:
> I'd guess that the Sabbat rules are meant to override this, since they
> are the most recent set of rules, but since the DCI and WotC are
> separate entities (at least, on paper), I just thought I'd try to get
> this cleared up.
The Sabbat rules overturn the previous DCI rules. They crush them. They
destroy them beneath the steel boot of violence! They annihilate them!!!
ARGH!!!
...Excuse me, I got a bit carried away. Yeah, the Sabbat rules overturn
the old.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.91.961114...@gladstone.uoregon.edu>, Algustas
<arob...@gladstone.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> So then, I could riposte and then use pulled fangs?> So then, I can make a Weenie Presence combat deck using> Bums rush, Catatonic Fear, and Pulled Fangs? No wonder big vampires are
> getting cheaper....
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <56ffas$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) wrote:
> Under the new method, who gets the Ante of a Methuselah who is forced to
> withdraw? (Ante goes to whoever gets the VP, but since no one gets the
> VP in this case...)
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <56ffas$9...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) wrote:
> Under the new method, who gets the Ante of a Methuselah who is forced to
> withdraw? (Ante goes to whoever gets the VP, but since no one gets the
> VP in this case...)
Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[ quoted text not captured ]
Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>In article <56f8lp$6...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.>Scott Johnson) wrote:>> So, now you /can't/ use Undead Persistence to prevent one damage?
>> Care to clarify that reversal?>Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
Feedback! Ooh! I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
Thanks!
(You may want to reprogram your F12 key to simulate
the keystrokes: "Noted for the next Meeting". Or
not. Just a thought :-)
>> >ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
>> >Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
>>
>> Again: What text denotes a hand strike?
>>
>> By the above "answer", I could assume that Blood Rage is a hand strike.
>> (That is, it doesn't involve a weapon).>You would be correct. As far as I know, there is no specific wording that>denotes a Hand Strike. If the strike is at short range, and does not
>involve a weapon, it is to be considered a Hand Strike.
It should be a non-ranged, non-weapon strike "based on hand damage".
Boiling a vampire's blood inside him shouldn't count as a hand strike.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>In article <56f8lp$6...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
>Scott Johnson) wrote:>> Again: What text denotes a hand strike?
>>
>> By the above "answer", I could assume that Blood Rage is a hand strike.
>> (That is, it doesn't involve a weapon).>You would be correct. As far as I know, there is no specific wording that>denotes a Hand Strike. If the strike is at short range, and does not
>involve a weapon, it is to be considered a Hand Strike.
eee gads, I hope not. It makes every strike except weapons legal under
an Immortal Grapple. Perhaps, you'd like to be more specific. Like say,
if the the strike does not use a weapon, and it's damage is based on hand
damage, it is a hand strike.
>> This reverses several restriction/rulings placed on the playability of
>> Pulled Fangs. Is that intentional?>It's the rules.
Look out! Here come the Catatonic Fear/Riposte/Pulled Fangs decks.
Mike
Hi Jon,
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Jon Wilkie wrote:
>
> Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
>
I, for one, appreciate this courtesy of letting me know when an
answer will be arriving. Thank You. Looking forward to the answer.
Algustas
*****A riot is a spontaneous outburst. A war is subject to advance
planning***** Richard M Nixon
Jon Wilkie wrote:
"You would be correct. As far as I know, there is no specific wording
that denotes a Hand Strike. If the strike is at short range, and does not
involve a weapon, it is to be considered a Hand Strike."
Ok, this is just plain wrong. By this defenition, the following are hand
strikes:
Blood Fury
Blood Rage
Tounge of the Serpent
Shatter
Dodge
Strike: Combat Ends
If these are all "Hand Strikes" (Strikes at short range that do not
involve weapons...), then Immortal Grapple does not, in fact, prevent
Dodge and S:CE. That is simply not the case. Dodge is not a Hand Strike.
S:CE is not a hand strike. None of the above strikes are Hand Strikes.
Hand strikes are defined by either striking with ones hand (default
Strike) or using cards that modify your hand damage (like Torn Signpost,
Undead Strength, Growing Fury).
The question of what is or is not a "Hand Strike" stems from certain
situations involving certain "Hand +X Damage" weapons (like Bastard Sword)
which in Jyhad were very clearly non hand strikes, as they said "Strike: 2
damage" as opposed to VTES where they are somewhat ambiguous as to
wheither or not they are hand strikes. The same goes for cards like
"Scorpion Sting" and "Burning Wrath", which may or may not be Hand
Strikes, due to ambiguous wording. There has never been any debate about
cards like Blood Rage, Dodge, or S:CE. They simply are not hand strikes.
To state that they are is either:
A) A baseless rules change.
B) An erroneous statement.
If this statement is due to (A), that is just plain dumb. if it is due to
(B), then ok, we all make mistakes, but please avoid making such erroneous
statements in the future, as it leads to confusion.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"And the license said you had to stick around
until I was dead.
But if you're tired of looking at my face
I guess I already am."
-Liz Phair
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996, Jon Wilkie wrote:
>
> Noted for the next Rules Meeting.
>
Finally!
I'm not sure you're posting this just to give us the idea that
you're reading this and actually doing something about it or that you're
repeating these statements to make fun of our claims that you're never
here...
Anyway I for one am happy that you're showing interest in
solving our problems. However I'm pretty sure everyone would rather have
you answering the questions right away, but since you don't seem to have
many confidence in doing that -- and judging from an answer you gave
without recurring to the rules team -- you're right in not giving answers
straight away...
And please don't feel bad about everyone saying "oh, Tom was the
one, this guy does nothing". This might make you think twice about reading
the newsgroup the day after but the fact is we need you here.
Ok, for you not to dismiss a pretty useless post, here goes a
Scalpel Question (tm):
- John Antitribu is Archbishop of Lisbon. He somehow is accepted
via Writ of Acceptance. He calls a Praxis Seizure: Lisbon. Is he a Prince
and an Archbishop? Can he enter combat with himself? :) (well, never mind
the last one) The point is: don't you think having vamps belonging both
to Camarilla and Sabbat makes things a little strange? And please, don't
just say "screw the RPG, that's what the rules say" for it's not that
much of an answer...
(insert "Noted for the next Rules Team" stamp here):
|
V
David Pontes
8[
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.961118...@alfa.ist.utl.pt>,
David Pontes <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> wrote:
> I'm not sure you're posting this just to give us the idea that
> you're reading this and actually doing something about it or that you're
> repeating these statements to make fun of our claims that you're never
> here...
It's to let you know I'm reading them. If I wanted to make fun of you, it
would say "Noted for next Rules Team Meeting, you icky person." :)
> - John Antitribu is Archbishop of Lisbon. He somehow is accepted
> via Writ of Acceptance. He calls a Praxis Seizure: Lisbon. Is he a Prince
> and an Archbishop? Can he enter combat with himself? :) (well, never mind
> the last one) The point is: don't you think having vamps belonging both
> to Camarilla and Sabbat makes things a little strange? And please, don't
> just say "screw the RPG, that's what the rules say" for it's not that
> much of an answer...
This one is so clear-cut that I can answer it. Although John can be an
Archbishop and a member of the Camarilla at the same time, as soon as he
gets another title, he loses all other titles. Therefore, when he becomes
Prince, he'd stop being Archbishop. Roleplayign explanation? He
masquerading as Camarilla, while secretly running the Sabbat in Lisbon.
This isn't too improbable; in a campaign we're running now, the Tremere
just appointed Pontifex of the city is secretly an Infernal Sabbat
Diablorist!
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:59:08 -0800, Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie)
wrote:
>In article <56fqov$e...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.>Scott Johnson) wrote:>> I'd guess that the Sabbat rules are meant to override this, since they
>> are the most recent set of rules, but since the DCI and WotC are
>> separate entities (at least, on paper), I just thought I'd try to get
>> this cleared up.>
>The Sabbat rules overturn the previous DCI rules. They crush them. They
>destroy them beneath the steel boot of violence! They annihilate them!!!
>ARGH!!!
>
>
>...Excuse me, I got a bit carried away. Yeah, the Sabbat rules overturn
>the old.
>
Whoa! I think that our usually mild-mannered Scalpel has shown a side
much more suited to this newsgroup!
Congratulations, btw. I really liked the "destroy them beneath the
steel boot of violence" bit. ;)
Keep up the good work, and don't take any of my comments personally,
even if they look argumentative. I'd like more input from you
occasionally(I mentioned this in another post), even, or maybe
especially if it came in the form of something like the above.
Anyway, have a good night, with the blessing of one amused
Malkavian...
Alec Chang(aka. Celax)
Jon Wilkie wrote:
>
> In article <56fqov$e...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
> Scott Johnson) wrote:
> > I'd guess that the Sabbat rules are meant to override this, since they
> > are the most recent set of rules, but since the DCI and WotC are
> > separate entities (at least, on paper), I just thought I'd try to get
> > this cleared up.
>
> The Sabbat rules overturn the previous DCI rules. They crush them. They
> destroy them beneath the steel boot of violence! They annihilate them!!!
> ARGH!!!
>
> ...Excuse me, I got a bit carried away. Yeah, the Sabbat rules overturn
> the old.
>
Jon, this is a bit confusing. The DCI rules always override the rules
of the game. If the DCI rules add a banned list or a restriction on
repeat actions we are to ignore the "game" rules about deck construction
or minion actions. Any rules changes, no matter what medium they are
released in, should never override the DCI rules. I highly reccommend
that you get the DCI to update their tournament rules. The current
situation sets up a situation where we no longer know with certainty
that the DCI rules will be used in a tournament. You now need to know
that it is the Game Rules appended or overridden by the DCI rules
overridden or appended by the Sabbat Insert! Yuch!
Robert
--
......................................................................
:The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings:
:and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. :
: :
:Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com:
:....................................................................:
:cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon :
:....................................................................:
>> QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath
>> not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming).
>> CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword,
>> Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)?
>>
>> ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
>> Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
>>> And Kali's Fang? It's a Melee weapon that doesn't seem to be
>affected by natural +x hand damage but is subject to undead strengtheses
>et al. Why didn't you do the +1 hand damage as usual? Or are you making a
>Kali's strike's damage not increasable by lucky blow's/potence cards.
And why can I not punch my enemy with my brass knuckles when using Immortal
Grapple?
I Like to say this about the errata on the following Cards:
Bang Nakh:
I Understand the errata that says "strikes using Bang Nakh is not hand strikes".
It means that you cannot use Wolf Claws and Bank Nakh.
But what happened to Immortal Grapple? I cannot pump my opponent with my
HUGE brass knuckles in the stomach when holding him becouse
"strikes using Bang Nakh is not hand strikes".... SMART REALLY SMART...
And why is BASTARD SWORD, MEAT CLEAVER and BRASS KNUCKLES useable with
Wolf Claws and Immmortal Grapple?
Inner Circle:
Commit it, it was to heavy to have all out there Understand that
Inner Circle also can use the traditions (they ARE the HIGHEST of the camarilla,
the HIGHEST enforcers of the 6 traditions) you you simply followed the card
rules?
Assamites "The Embrace":
It's better to not commit Assamite progeny to commit diableri. It have more
feeling from the original Vampire The Masquerade.
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Jon Wilkie wrote:
> > - John Antitribu is Archbishop of Lisbon. He somehow is accepted
> > via Writ of Acceptance. He calls a Praxis Seizure: Lisbon. Is he a Prince
> > and an Archbishop? Can he enter combat with himself? :) (well, never mind
> > the last one) The point is: don't you think having vamps belonging both
> > to Camarilla and Sabbat makes things a little strange? And please, don't
> > just say "screw the RPG, that's what the rules say" for it's not that
> > much of an answer...
>
> This one is so clear-cut that I can answer it. Although John can be an
> Archbishop and a member of the Camarilla at the same time, as soon as he
> gets another title, he loses all other titles. Therefore, when he becomes
> Prince, he'd stop being Archbishop.
That's right! :)
Hey, you're not so bad after all! :>>
> Roleplayign explanation? He
> masquerading as Camarilla, while secretly running the Sabbat in Lisbon.
> This isn't too improbable; in a campaign we're running now, the Tremere
> just appointed Pontifex of the city is secretly an Infernal Sabbat
> Diablorist!
>
Yes, yes, but then why in blazes does he have to stop being
Archbishop? ;)
Just a thought (to nag you once more with the CCG's inconsistencies towards
the RPG)
David Pontes
8[
staffan.bengtsson wrote:
>
> I Like to say this about the errata on the following Cards:
>
> Bang Nakh:
> I Understand the errata that says "strikes using Bang Nakh is not
> hand strikes".
It is not errata. It is a melee weapon strike, not a hand strike.
> It means that you cannot use Wolf Claws and Bank Nakh.
> But what happened to Immortal Grapple? I cannot pump my opponent with
> my HUGE brass knuckles in the stomach when holding him becouse
> "strikes using Bang Nakh is not hand strikes".... SMART REALLY
> SMART...
Um, what would prefer? Would you like Immortal Grapple to say "You can
only use hand strikes or strikes that look like they could be used while
you're grabbing someone"?
> And why is BASTARD SWORD, MEAT CLEAVER and BRASS KNUCKLES useable with
> Wolf Claws and Immmortal Grapple?
None of those are usable in an immortal grapple. Wolf Claws does not
make melee weapon damage aggravated.
> Inner Circle:
> Commit it, it was to heavy to have all out there Understand that
> Inner Circle also can use the traditions (they ARE the HIGHEST of the
> camarilla, the HIGHEST enforcers of the 6 traditions) you you simply
> followed the card rules?
Allowing Inner Circle members the priveleges of Justicars would be a
house rule. There is no specific reason to allow this, other that V:tM
considerations.
> Assamites "The Embrace":
> It's better to not commit Assamite progeny to commit diableri. It
> have more feeling from the original Vampire The Masquerade.
Rulings about the _card_game_ have to be based on considerations of game
play and balance; things based on the role playing game have to take a
back seat to these.
This is a card game, not a role-playing game. It is _based_ on V:tM,
but there are plenty of inconsistencies.
James
--
James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Only one human captain has ever survived battle with the Minbari fleet.
He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives, be
somewhere else." -- Ambassador Delenn, "Babylon 5: Severed Dreams"
staffan.bengtsson wrote:
>
> >> QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath
> >> not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming).
> >> CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword,
> >> Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)?
> >>
> >> ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
> >> Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
> >>
>
> > And Kali's Fang? It's a Melee weapon that doesn't seem to be
> >affected by natural +x hand damage but is subject to undead
> > strengtheses
> >et al. Why didn't you do the +1 hand damage as usual? Or are you
> >making a
> >Kali's strike's damage not increasable by lucky blow's/potence cards.
Kali's Fang's damage is increasable by Undead Strength, for example, but
not by Scorpion Sting, since one mentions melee weapons and the other
doesn't. It's just the way the cards were written.
> And why can I not punch my enemy with my brass knuckles when using
> Immortal Grapple?
What explanation would you give for why you would be able to use Brass
Kanukles and not Bastard Sword? Because one _looks_ like it goes on
your hand? I understand that it seems counter-intuitive, but that's the
way it goes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>staffan.bengtsson wrote:> And why can I not punch my enemy with my brass knuckles when
> using Immortal Grapple?
Because Brass Knuckles is a melee weapon. It doesn't
have to make sense in real-life terms. Immortal Grapple
prevents the usage of any non-hand strikes, regardless of
whether common sense dictates that a vampire should be able to
hit someone else with a Brass Knuckles strike. After all, I
_should_ be able, under that sort of reasoning, to use Majesty
or Staredown in an Immortally Grappled combat.
-Nathan Harada
> Because Brass Knuckles is a melee weapon. It doesn't
>have to make sense in real-life terms. Immortal Grapple
>prevents the usage of any non-hand strikes, regardless of
>whether common sense dictates that a vampire should be able to
>hit someone else with a Brass Knuckles strike.
This "Meelee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says on the
card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand damage*.
>_should_ be able, under that sort of reasoning, to use Majesty
>or Staredown in an Immortally Grappled combat.
And you cannot?
Sorrow
--
I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am
anymore |--------------------------------
I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...?
anymore | you never seen anyone try to
I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorrow (cbo...@apdi.net) wrote:
: > Because Brass Knuckles is a melee weapon. It doesn't: >have to make sense in real-life terms. Immortal Grapple
: >prevents the usage of any non-hand strikes, regardless of
: >whether common sense dictates that a vampire should be able to
: >hit someone else with a Brass Knuckles strike.
:
: This "Meelee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says on the
: card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand damage*.
Yes... and then we get rulings that state otherwise. Do you sense
the frustration?
: >_should_ be able, under that sort of reasoning, to use Majesty: >or Staredown in an Immortally Grappled combat.
:
: And you cannot?
Under recent rulings, NO. Now, everything is in question all over
again.
-spongy
Sorrow wrote:
>
> > Because Brass Knuckles is a melee weapon. It doesn't
> >have to make sense in real-life terms. Immortal Grapple
> >prevents the usage of any non-hand strikes, regardless of
> >whether common sense dictates that a vampire should be able to
> >hit someone else with a Brass Knuckles strike.
>> This "Melee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says> on the card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand
> damage*.
There is no weapon that says it deals "X hand damage". Weapons that say
that they do "+Y hand damage" do damage _based_on_ the vampire's current
hand damage, but the damage is dealt _through_ the weapon, so it is
_weapon_ damage.
> >_should_ be able, under that sort of reasoning, to use Majesty
> >or Staredown in an Immortally Grappled combat.
>
> And you cannot?
No! Strike: Combat Ends is not a hand strike. It is Strike: Combat
Ends. Strike: Dodge is not a hand strike. It is Strike: Dodge. Strike
with Bastard Sword is not a hand strike. It is a sword strike. It
doesn't matter that it fits in your hand. There isn't a special type of
weapon "picture looks like it fits on hand". It doesn't have to make
sense. It has to follow the rules of the game. If you want to make
some weird house rule making IG useless, go ahead.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Steffan wrote:
" And why is BASTARD SWORD, MEAT CLEAVER and BRASS KNUCKLES useable with
Wolf Claws and Immmortal Grapple?"
They are not. The only strikes that you may make while Immortally
Grappled are basic hand strikes and strikes that modify basic hand
strikes, like Undead Strength, Mighty Grapple, a hand strike while using
Torn Signpost, or a hand strike using Claws of the Dead. Strikes with
weapons, regardless of what the weapon looks like or what kind of damage
they do, are weapon strikes, not hand strikes. Hitting someone with a
Bastard Sword does damage equal to a vampires hand damage+1, but it is not
a hand strike, it is a Bastard Sword strike, thus it is not useable while
Immortally Grappled. Hitting someone with a Sengir Dagger does agrivated
damage equal to a vampires hand damage, but it is a strike with a Sengir
Dagger, not a hand strike, and thus may not be used while Immortally
Grappled.
If you are Immortally Grappled, you cannot use weapons, regardless of what
they look like or if they do damage based on a vampires hand damage. Only
bare hands.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Nathan Harada wrote:
>
> >staffan.bengtsson wrote:
>
> > And why can I not punch my enemy with my brass knuckles when
> > using Immortal Grapple?
>> Because Brass Knuckles is a melee weapon. It doesn't
> have to make sense in real-life terms.
Well, it does make sense, or you can give it sense: I think even the
most vicious Brujah street fighter does not wear his beloved brass
knuckles all the time. If he is in an Immortal grapple it is simply so
close and fast that he had no opportunity to put them on (or to grap his
shotgun, Sengir Gagge etc.) That's the way in which many Jyhad Cards can
be interpreted that seem to be senseless at first sight. On the other
hand some are certainly trash considering real life, and those cards I
do not like!
Marc
Grettings to thee, oh Didi from Münster :)
James Hamblin wrote:
> weapon "picture looks like it fits on hand". It doesn't have to make
> sense. It has to follow the rules of the game.
Is this really your opinion? You don't care wether a card makes sense or
not? Hmm, I simply cannot understand this view. After all, this is not
just bridge or black jack. It is the Card-Game-Version of a roleplaying
game (oh, sorry White Wolf: a storyteller game), and this is quite
important to me!
As I wrote in another article this special Immortal grapple situation
does make sense, you just have to think about its implications and it is
okay, but other cards are indeed senseless and I never put them in my
decks, because I don't like those!
I came across some persons who think like you, but most of my co-players
really enjoy playing Jyhad and still create the atmosphere of a Vampire
the Masquerade game. Of course not to the extent of a real RPG evening
but somewhere near.
Don't mistake me: I respect your view, I just don't share it.
Marc
> Sorrow wrote:> > I wrote:
> > Because Brass Knuckles is a melee weapon. It doesn't
> >have to make sense in real-life terms. Immortal Grapple
> >prevents the usage of any non-hand strikes, regardless of
> >whether common sense dictates that a vampire should be able to
> >hit someone else with a Brass Knuckles strike.
>> This "Meelee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says on the> card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand damage*.
Chalk that up to a WotC mistake. It is a melee weapon-if it
helps, think of all melee weapons which say: The minion with this weapon
gets +x hand damage each strike as the Jyhad Sengir Dagger. (X damage,
any effects which give additional damage to melee weapons are also
applied, including +1 hands.)
Anything using the template Strike: +1 hand damage is a hand
strike. (In comparison, the melee weapons say: The minion with this
equipment gets +1 hand damage each strike...confusing, but
distinguishable from the Strike card template. To reiterate: melee
weapon strikes are based off of hand damage, and are not hand damage
modifiers-a vampire may not strike with hands for +2 hand damage
while just carrying a Bang Nakh.)
> >_should_ be able, under that sort of reasoning, to use Majesty
> >or Staredown in an Immortally Grappled combat.
> And you cannot?
Er...last I checked, I couldn't S:CE or Dodge in an
Immortal Grapple. Part of the previous poster's ideas were linked
to the problem with game-world logic. Yours, Sorrow, seem to be
linked more to the +2 hand damage confusion with some V:TES
equipment. The Majesty and Staredown example was just to display
the flaws in "Why can't my vampire use Brass Knuckles in an Immortal
Grappled combat?" by taking it to a logical extreme.
-Nathan Harada
Marc Erl wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
>> > weapon "picture looks like it fits on hand". It doesn't have to
> > make sense. It has to follow the rules of the game.>
> Is this really your opinion? You don't care wether a card makes sense
> or not?
No, I just feel that if the rules make sense for the most part (with
they do), but with a few exceptions, I can live with that. I do try to
find plausible explanations for things (like why a gun gives you a
maneuver), but if I can't, I give up. My friend has found a good
explanation for the Brass Kanukles and Immortal Grapple problem: they
were in your pocket, and Beast grabbed you before you could put them on!
[ quoted text not captured ]
staffan.bengtsson (staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se) wrote:
:
: I Like to say this about the errata on the following Cards:
:
: Bang Nakh:
: I Understand the errata that says "strikes using Bang Nakh is not hand strikes".: It means that you cannot use Wolf Claws and Bank Nakh.: But what happened to Immortal Grapple? I cannot pump my opponent with my
: HUGE brass knuckles in the stomach when holding him becouse
: "strikes using Bang Nakh is not hand strikes".... SMART REALLY SMART...:
: And why is BASTARD SWORD, MEAT CLEAVER and BRASS KNUCKLES useable with: Wolf Claws and Immmortal Grapple?:
: Inner Circle:: Commit it, it was to heavy to have all out there Understand that
: Inner Circle also can use the traditions (they ARE the HIGHEST of the camarilla,
: the HIGHEST enforcers of the 6 traditions) you you simply followed the card
: rules?:
: Assamites "The Embrace":[ quoted text not captured ]:
:
:
Marc Erl wrote:
>
> James Hamblin wrote:
>
> > weapon "picture looks like it fits on hand". It doesn't have to make
> > sense. It has to follow the rules of the game.
>
> Is this really your opinion? You don't care wether a card makes sense or> not? Hmm, I simply cannot understand this view. After all, this is not
> just bridge or black jack. It is the Card-Game-Version of a roleplaying
> game (oh, sorry White Wolf: a storyteller game), and this is quite
> important to me!
> As I wrote in another article this special Immortal grapple situation
> does make sense, you just have to think about its implications and it is
> okay, but other cards are indeed senseless and I never put them in my
> decks, because I don't like those!
> I came across some persons who think like you, but most of my co-players
> really enjoy playing Jyhad and still create the atmosphere of a Vampire
> the Masquerade game. Of course not to the extent of a real RPG evening
> but somewhere near.
> Don't mistake me: I respect your view, I just don't share it.
> Marc
Thanks I take it as a compliment.
cu on in the Palermo
didi
Sorrow (cbo...@apdi.net) wrote:
: This "Meelee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says on the: card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand damage*.
Wake up and read the rulebook. The Jyhad rulebook, at least
(the only one I use, or ever will except for some minor new
points) is quite clear on melee weapon usages. Even though
V:tES phrasings have made this a bit unclear, I can't believe
that even WotC would change the perfectly reasonable and clear
rules on this topic.
: And you cannot?
The _only_ strikes which can be declared against or by a
vampire using immortal grapple are hand or modified hand
strikes. It is one of the precious few foils for S:CE decks,
and my personal favorite.
: Sorrow
Wallpaper Paste
for all those useless cards
dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Dave Green) writes:
>Sorrow (cbo...@apdi.net) wrote:>: This "Meelee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says on the
>: card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand damage*.>Wake up and read the rulebook. The Jyhad rulebook, at least
>(the only one I use, or ever will except for some minor new
>points) is quite clear on melee weapon usages. Even though
>V:tES phrasings have made this a bit unclear, I can't believe
>that even WotC would change the perfectly reasonable and clear
>rules on this topic.
According to the latest rulings, any non-weapon, non-ranged
strike is a hand strike. This would include S:CE as well as
Blood Ire and Tongue of the Serpent.
I can't believe that they would change to this rule, either,
but there it is.
>: And you cannot?>The _only_ strikes which can be declared against or by a
>vampire using immortal grapple are hand or modified hand
>strikes. It is one of the precious few foils for S:CE decks,
>and my personal favorite.
So it used to be.
Here's hoping it will be again (soon)...
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Eschew
http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | Obfuscation
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Hamblin writes:
>My friend has found a good explanation for the Brass Kanukles and
>Immortal Grapple problem: they were in your pocket, and Beast grabbed
>you before you could put them on!
And you can only use Brass Knuckles one per combat, so after
you hit your enemy, you stick them back in your pocket?
"Reality is for people who can't handle Star Trek."
--
________________ "Howdy, girls and boys ______
___@^^^^\ / \ and little neuters!" / \
@ \_____/ David Schwartz \__________________________/ >
(^^^^^\ _______ ___/
\---\ / \ da...@schwartz.manawatu.gen.nz /
\_____________/ \__________________________________/
David Schwartz wrote:
>
> James Hamblin writes:
> >My friend has found a good explanation for the Brass Kanukles and
> >Immortal Grapple problem: they were in your pocket, and Beast grabbed
> >you before you could put them on!
>
> And you can only use Brass Knuckles one per combat, so after
> you hit your enemy, you stick them back in your pocket?
Um... yeah... sure... :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
pd...@aol.com writes:
> LSJ wrote:
> "According to the latest rulings, any non-weapon, non-ranged strike is a
> hand strike. This would include S:CE as well as Blood Ire and Tongue of
> the Serpent."
>> L Scott,
>
> Actually, I belive that this absurd statement was not actually a "Ruling"
> as such (it was not in the "Weekly Rulings" post), but was just an
> erroneous statement by Jon Wilkie. It was not in the context of "Official
You're right to a point, but it was also implied in the rulings:
QUESTION: 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath
not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming).
CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike" (Bastard Sword,
Scorpion Sting, Burning Wrath, Bang Nakh)?
ANSWER: Hand strikes do not involve weapons. Hence, Bastard Sword & Bang
Nakh are not hand strikes, while Burning Wrath is.
Even with the clarification part of the question, the answer gave only
"weapon" as a criterion for determining if a strike was a hand strike.
Later, Wilkie added the "non-ranged" criterion (as part of what you refer
to as his erroneous statement).
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
"According to the latest rulings, any non-weapon, non-ranged strike is a
hand strike. This would include S:CE as well as Blood Ire and Tongue of
the Serpent."
L Scott,
Actually, I belive that this absurd statement was not actually a "Ruling"
as such (it was not in the "Weekly Rulings" post), but was just an
erroneous statement by Jon Wilkie. It was not in the context of "Official
Rulings", just in a post that he was involved in. I do not think that it
was meant as "The Offical Word/Rules Change" so much as a well meaning
mistake by Jon.
We will have to wait untill the next "Weekly Rulings" post to see if is an
official statement. As far as I understand, though, Tom Wiley (I could be
wrong. I think I read that somewhere) is on the Rules Team that Jon meets
with and thus sanity may prevail.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In a strictly theoretical sense, LSJ is of course correct,
however (being the keeper of lists), however, in field work I'm sure you
will find that anyone trying to earth meld through an immortal grapple
will find himself spitting teeth in short order.
Garry
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote:
: dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Dave Green) writes:
: >Sorrow (cbo...@apdi.net) wrote:
:
: >: This "Meelee weapon is not hand damage" crap is outrageous. It says on the
: >: card(s) that the equipment that the weapon does X or +X *hand damage*.
:
: >Wake up and read the rulebook. The Jyhad rulebook, at least
: >(the only one I use, or ever will except for some minor new
: >points) is quite clear on melee weapon usages. Even though
: >V:tES phrasings have made this a bit unclear, I can't believe
: >that even WotC would change the perfectly reasonable and clear
: >rules on this topic.:
: According to the latest rulings, any non-weapon, non-ranged: strike is a hand strike. This would include S:CE as well as
: Blood Ire and Tongue of the Serpent.:
: I can't believe that they would change to this rule, either,: but there it is.
:
: >: And you cannot?
:
: >The _only_ strikes which can be declared against or by a
: >vampire using immortal grapple are hand or modified hand
: >strikes. It is one of the precious few foils for S:CE decks,
: >and my personal favorite.
:
: So it used to be.
: Here's hoping it will be again (soon)...: --[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
"Even with the clarification part of the question, the answer gave only
"weapon" as a criterion for determining if a strike was a hand strike.
Later, Wilkie added the "non-ranged" criterion (as part of what you refer
to as his erroneous statement)."
And then later on, he wrote in response to a question about Bang-Nakh,
"Bang-Nakh is a hand strike, as it does +2 Hand Damage.", there by
contradicting most of everything else he said on the subject. I don't
think that consistiency is at a premium here :-)
For the time being, I feel we should all assume that all the standard
rules regarding "Hand Strikes" and "Hand Damage" (as you and I understand
them) still hold untill we see a specific "Official" rules post (at which
point we can begin the "Official" protest :-)
I think that the "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" part of the
"Official" answer was originally intended to mean something along the
lines of "If it does hand damage but does not involve weapons, it is a
hand strike" differentiating between a Bastard Sword and an Undead
Strength hand strike, but got accidentally blown into "anything that is at
close range and does not use a weapon is a hand strike." I just think it
is a big misunderstanding (kind of like an eppisode of "Three's Company")
that has now snowballed out of control.
[ quoted text not captured ]
pd...@aol.com writes:
>I think that the "Hand strikes do not involve weapons" part of the
>"Official" answer was originally intended to mean something along the
>lines of "If it does hand damage but does not involve weapons, it is a
>hand strike" differentiating between a Bastard Sword and an Undead
>Strength hand strike, but got accidentally blown into "anything that is at
>close range and does not use a weapon is a hand strike." I just think it
>is a big misunderstanding (kind of like an eppisode of "Three's Company")
>that has now snowballed out of control.
Mr. Wilkie also very clearly stated that Blood Fury is a hand strike.
How now?
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ wrote:
"Mr. Wilkie also very clearly stated that Blood Fury is a hand strike.
How now?"
Yes, and this furthers my theory that Mr. Wilkie's responses on this
subject were based on his own misunderstanding of the subject, rather than
a specific rules change.
I don't think that the rules team changed the rules on hand strikes (or
made absurd ones...), I think that Mr. Wilkie mangled them in his
translation.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Now, maybe there will be some peace and quiet in this place."
-Yojimbo